November 26, 2015 –
crimson alter, PolitRussia –
Translated for Fort Russ by J. Arnoldski
“’Putin’s agents’ in Europe have been invigorated”
The pseudo-patriotic approach with the slogan “Let Europe burn” is a negation of our successful national historical experience. We won all of our great victories in alliance with countries and political elites which would cause a normal Russian person to gag. It is unlikely that Stalin felt any personal sympathy for Churchill and relations between London and Moscow have never been cloudless. But, for our country, cooperation with Great Britain was profitable and Stalin guaranteed this. In relation to contemporary Europe, we need to think just as pragmatically using our head and not our spinal cord.
The certainty of such parlor philosophers as to the fact that “Europe is under the Yankees” and that anyone who suggests “we need Berlin” or a split in the European political elite is an enemy and propagandist of the “fridge party” is surprising. Apparently, in Beijing they don’t read such “patriotic” bloggers since China is not only not rejecting the idea of involving Europe in its “New Silk Road” project, but is in fact intensifying diplomatic efforts in the European direction. In a recent interview. Sergey Ivanov clearly noted the existence of a split in the European political elite. Answering the question as to whether or not sanctions against Russia led to a split of the elites, Ivanonv remarked: “Yes. Only in a mirror image. It appears to me that the it is not our elite that has been split, but the one abroad.”
However, some still prefer to believe the unscientific fiction of offended “patriots” and not an influential Kremlin official who is an experienced intelligence officer and a specialist on Western Europe.
Now it is worth taking a look at how this split manifests itself. It is important to understand that the fault line of the split of the European elite is not connected so much with Russia. Relations with our country are nothing more than a reflection of how different representatives of the influential European elites see the future of Europe as a whole. There are two competing images of the future: “Europe – a happy and favorite colony of the USA” and “Europe – an independent geopolitical player.” It is not difficult to see that this fully coincides with the images of the future which are competing in our country: “Russia – a colony of the USA” and “Russia – an independent geopolitical player.” It is precisely this which explains that attraction experienced by Russian system and non-system liberals to their like-minded brothers in the EU as well as the ease with which the Kremlin finds a common language with European politicians who are ready to live by their wits.
An important event took place last year. Instead of Barroso, an incorrigible Russophobe, corrupt and dishonest person whom the Americans shared mountains of dirt with, Jean-Claude Juncker became the president of the European Commission. In an article from a year ago, your humble servant described the reasons why Juncker would be very inconvenient to the Americans and the British as well as the facts of his biography which tightly connect Juncker with the interests of those supporting an independent Europe.
This article contained the following conclusion:
“Based on the considerations mentioned above, it is easy to understand that the election of Jean-Claude Juncker as president of the European Commission is a savory spit in the face of London and Washington. The new leader of the main EU organ is not a Russophobe and does not have an “ideological charge” of Euro-Atlantic values, but has serious support from Germany, is a lover of European business, a veteran of the struggle against Anglo-American influence in the EU, and has serious, long-standing and personal scores to settle with London and Washington. If we look at things realistically, then it is difficult to imagine a more comfortable policy in terms of negotiations with Russia. I am inclined to think that Putin is a pragmatist and the cynic Juncker has all the chances to negotiate and bring EU-Russian cooperation to a whole new level. Of course, no one can guarantee this, but there are reasons to be optimistic.”
Judging by the recent actions of Juncker, he will soon start to be accused of being an agent of Putin. Most likely, Ukrainian or Polish media will be the first ones to do this.
After the terrorist attacks in Paris, the president of the European Commission did something terrifying. He openly encroached on the money of the American military-industrial complex. The essence of the problem is that after every large terrorist attack in Europe (Madrid 2004, London 2005), the US, under the pretext of ensuring security in Europe, sought to increase the expenditures of European countries on the maintenance of NATO and the purchase of American weapons. This is actually a banal form of tribute to the maintenance of the occupying army and its (largely American) weapon suppliers. The price is around 300 billion dollars a year, and the United States demands a gradual increase of tribute up to 550 billion dollars a year (when you hear American statements that the EU needs to spend “at least 2% of GDP on defense” – this is a demand for greater tribute). Taking into account the foregoing, it can be expected that after the Paris terrorist attacks another increase of tribute will follow, and Western media has already began to habitually move the message “NATO will save us from terrorism. Give the Americans money, quick!” The belt is out. President Juncker of the European Commission has used the occasion to promote his proposal, namely the creation of a European Union army: “I have said that I advocate the establishment of a European army, and I have been criticized for this. Now it is obvious that we need to heavily invest in the creation of a real European defense policy.”
In practice, Juncker’s proposal inevitable leads to the following consequences:
- Europe will have its own military infrastructure beyond the control of the US
- European money will be used to create a European army and not for maintaining the American army and the purchasing American weapons
Overall, the US is losing its monopoly on military force in Europe and 300 billion dollars a year. Unsurprisingly, pro-American politicians and media have accepted this offer with bayonets. Pushing it directly now is unlikely to work, but the very fact that this plan for undermining the influence of the United States has been promoted by the President of the European Commission is a positive signal. The split is there.
Yet another surprising move by “Agent Juncker” was the letter he sent to Vladimir Putin. I’ll remind everyone that the head of the European Commission wrote a letter to the president of Russia offering to strengthen trade relations between the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union.
The letter was sent without consultation with the representatives of such countries as Lithuania and Poland which made their diplomats furious, and even without the consent of other commissioners who later tried to disown it. The Kremlin welcomed the proposal for cooperation but warned against linking the Ukrainian question with cooperation between the EU and EEU. The message is clear: “Jean-Claude, we still have work to do!”
It is important to remember that this is not merely the initiative of a main European official. There are no random people in such positions. If Juncker “lights up,” this means that someone needs this and that someone is influential enough to appoint this man president of the European Commission.
The invisible threads linking the Kremlin and some European politicians gradually appear. It is no wonder that in recent times Moscow has become a fashionable place of political pilgrimage for such influential persons as the vice chancellor of Germany and the main competitor of Merkel, Sigmar Gabriel, and the main French opposition leader, Nicolas Sarkozy.
Sigmar Gabriel’s visit to Moscow was met with caustic comments from pro-American journalists. For example, “Die Welt” wrote that “in recent months, Gabriel has constantly showed that he is ready for compromise with Russia to a greater degree than Angela Merkel. However, the barrage of criticism which he drew fell upon the vice chancellor when he proposed to weaken sanctions against Russia in September, and this forced him to be more cautious. The political message which Gabriel brought to Moscow is that he advocates a closer relationship between Germany and Russia.”
After the Su-24 incident, Gabriel openly criticized Turkish authorities: “This incident showed for the first time that we are dealing with a player which, according to statements from different parts of the region, is unpredictable. And this is Turkey, not Russia.”
There is reason to believe that, gradually and especially against the background of problems with terrorists and refugees, pro-European politicians in the EU will gain enough strength to push the supporters of “colonial integration with the USA” away from the steering wheel. The ranks of “Putin’s agents in the EU” are growing day by day, and they are becoming bolder in their speeches and actions. It is too early to bury and write off Europe. It can still be saved, and it shouldn’t be thought that the pernicious ideology of “multiculturalism and tolerance at any cost” will lead to thee collapse of Europe under the pressure of migrants, refugees, and terrorists. We live in the postmodern era and with the right PR any ideology can be turned 180 degrees if there is political will. Two concrete examples can be cited. An influential representative of the Jewish community in Germany, Josef Schuster, stated that it is necessary to impose restrictions on the number of refugees and migrants arriving in Germany, and this goes against the policy of Angela Merkel. However, what is interesting in Schuster’s statement is not only the fact of demanding restrictions, but also the motivation of this demand: “the migrants are a danger to German Jews and homosexuals.” In the framework of European discourse, it is very dangerous to reason with such an argument.
In France, once again in the name of universal tolerance, the question of licensing Imams under the control of local branches of the ministry of internal affairs is being discussed, whereas earlier such seemed to be simply impossible.
The Paris terrorist attack led to interesting consequences. Instead of running with their money to the American “NATO umbrella,” the supporters of an independent Europe consolidated themselves and intensified their work. If they succeed, then the plans of the US to expand global hegemony at the expense of robbing European markets will come to an end. Russia, China, and, of course, Europe itself can only benefit from this.